Joy Christian's colourful exploding balls experiment

[FrediFizzx]

Richard, you have been told serveral times that Joy's experiment has nothing at all to do with CHSH and you even lost a bet with me on FQXi about it. So I think it best you give up that argument.

[gill1109]

Richard, you have been told serveral times that Joy's experiment has nothing at all to do with CHSH and you even lost a bet with me on FQXi about it. So I think it best you give up that argument.

I do not recall losing any bet on FQXi. It might be, that you thought you had won a bet, and thereupon ceased all communication.

Maybe you can tell me what the bet was.

Joy agrees that in the experiment which we are trying to get done together, as part of a new bet, we will test the CHSH inequality. He has agreed with my method of selection of measurement settings (CHSH style). So it seems to me that when Joy's experiment is finally performed, it will have quite a lot to do with CHSH.

We have a large part of a panel of independent adjudicators in place. When that is complete we will proceed with some kind of advertising (crowd funding) to get the financial resources, necessary for the experiment. The bet between Joy and me concerns the outcome of a test of the CHSH inequality.

But I predict I am going to win. I repeat:

Joy's original description of the experiment contain the instructions that the spins of the two hemispheres, say u and v, as two directions in real 3-D space, will be determined by computer image processing of the results of a battery of video cameras ... so that the sign of the inner products a^T u and b^T v are simultaneously determined for all a and for all b in S^2. If we restrict attention to the two pairs of CHSH directions for a and for b, and do N runs, we obtain the Nx4 spreadsheet which was discussed ... in another thread

[Joy Christian]

Joy agrees that in the experiment which we are trying to get done together, as part of a new bet, we will test the CHSH inequality. He has agreed with my method of selection of measurement settings (CHSH style). So it seems to me that when Joy's experiment is finally performed, it will have quite a lot to do with CHSH....

But I predict I am going to win. I repeat:

Joy's original description of the experiment contain the instructions that the spins of the two hemispheres, say u and v, as two directions in real 3-D space, will be determined by computer image processing of the results of a battery of video cameras ... so that the sign of the inner products a^T u and b^T v are simultaneously determined for all a and for all b in S^2. If we restrict attention to the two pairs of CHSH directions for a and for b, and do N runs, we obtain the Nx4 spreadsheet which was discussed ... in another thread

This is misleading. There will be no Nx4 spreadsheet in the experiment. You can have it for your private use and infer whatever you wish to infer from it. But it will have nothing to do with my prosed experiment. You agreed to this on the FQXi page when we initially discussed the bet. In my experiement all CHSH style correlation functions are calculated separately, as specified in equation (16) of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078. Once all four correlations are calculated separately, they can be added up to check for violations of CHSH. But at no point Nx4 spreadsheet must be used in this calculation, unless its topology is homeomorphic to S^3.

[gill1109]

Joy agrees that in the experiment which we are trying to get done together, as part of a new bet, we will test the CHSH inequality. He has agreed with my method of selection of measurement settings (CHSH style). So it seems to me that when Joy's experiment is finally performed, it will have quite a lot to do with CHSH....

But I predict I am going to win. I repeat:

Joy's original description of the experiment contain the instructions that the spins of the two hemispheres, say u and v, as two directions in real 3-D space, will be determined by computer image processing of the results of a battery of video cameras ... so that the sign of the inner products a^T u and b^T v are simultaneously determined for all a and for all b in S^2. If we restrict attention to the two pairs of CHSH directions for a and for b, and do N runs, we obtain the Nx4 spreadsheet which was discussed ... in another thread

This is misleading. There will be no Nx4 spreadsheet in the experiment. You can have it for your private use and infer whatever you wish to infer from it. But it will have nothing to do with my prosed experiment. You agreed to this on the FQXi page when we initially discussed the bet. In my experiment all CHSH style correlation functions are calculated separately, as specified in equation (16) of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078. Once all four correlations are calculated separately, they can be added up to check for violations of CHSH. But at no point Nx4 spreadsheet must be used in this calculation, unless its topology is homeomorphic to S^3.

There will be no Nx4 spreadsheet in the experiment. It's counterfactual existence is merely a Gedankenexperiment by myself. The four correlations will be calculated separately in the usual way, each on the basis of a disjoint subset consisting of about one quarter of the runs.

Local realism (and no-conspiracy) provides a sound basis for Gedankenexperiments, which can lead (via probability and statistics) to valid probability inferences about the actual outcome of the actual experiment. Obviously, my imagining what would have been the outcome if hemisphere A in run "n" had been measured in the direction a instead of in the direction a' has no influence on what we actually observe nor on the results of the calculations which we do with the actually observed data.

Similarly, if three positive real numbers a, b and c happen to satisfy a^2 + b^2 = c^2 then I can imagine that they are three sides of a right angled triangle with hypotenuse of length c. It does not mean that those numbers actually are sides of a real triangle. For instance, a and b could be sides of a triangle which is not right-angled. I would then validly conclude that the third side does not have length c. Facts on the ground are not changed by a thought experiment in which those facts are "embedded" in a larger counterfactual universe of imaginary facts. However, reasoning about possible embeddings can lead to valid conclusions about the facts on the ground.

In probability theory, reasoning that all 2^N possible sequences of outcomes of N = 1 million fair coin tosses are equally likely, allows us to conclude that when we do this experiment, it is safe to bet heavily on the result that the relative frequency of heads will lie between 0.4 and 0.6. Bernoulli's law of large numbers. In our experiment, there will be N = (say) 4 000 runs. For each run, I will have tossed two fair coins in order to fix Alice's and Bob's settings for that run. I can bring probability theory to bear on this, together with my Gedankenexperiment based on local realism, in order to bet pretty safely on the observed CHSH outcome.

I'm a very cautious person. I don't bet a significant amount of the monthly housekeeping budget if I'm not almost sure of winning.

[minkwe]

In my experiement all CHSH style correlation functions are calculated separately, as specified in equation (16) of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078. Once all four correlations are calculated separately, they can be added up to check for violations of CHSH. But at no point Nx4 spreadsheet must be used in this calculation, unless its topology is homeomorphic to S^3.

Hear hear .. . Nx4 keeps coming up for some reason.

[FrediFizzx]

I do not recall losing any bet on FQXi. It might be, that you thought you had won a bet, and thereupon ceased all communication.

I guess you forgot about Han Geurdes being the judge of the bet (he was selected by you and I agreed to it) and he ruled that I was right and you were wrong? The reason you ceased communications on FQXi is because you were supposed to appologize to Joy for losing the bet but you never did. I have the emails if you would like me to post them here. I noticed that someone went and deleted all the posts on FQXi about the bet. I wonder wonder who could have done that? And this is on topic because the bet was involving discussion about Joy's exploding ball experiment.

[gill1109]

Fred, I have a rather different recollection of the outcome. Here are quotes from two key emails:

On 25 May 2012 01:20, Fred Diether wrote:
Hi Han,

Following is what I posted for my answer on FQXi.

"Ok FQXi "Disproof" fans, here is how Richard is "rigging the game" involved with Joy's experiment using the CHSH inequality. Richard uses this form for the CHSH inequality which is OK,

ave(AB)+ave(AB')+ave(A'B)-ave(A'B') lies between -2 and +2.

Now, it is well known that the CHSH inequality was designed for an experiment like Weihs et al, where the detection vectors a, a', b, and b' are all done in a single run (remember the definition previously given of what a run is) of the experiment.

Really, the CHSH inequality doesn't even apply to Joy's experiment since he does the different detection vectors in different runs. So what happens is that the A from ave(AB) is not the same as the A in ave(AB') since the runs have "random results" even though the vectors a are the same in ave(AB) and ave(AB'). And likewise, the B in ave(AB) is not the same as the B in ave(A'B) and so forth for the others. So there you go; proof that Richard was in fact "rigging the game" by an invalid use of the CHSH inequality.

Now, I don't know if the CHSH inequality would apply in how Joy wants to use it related to his experiment. But I think it is no longer a CHSH inequality if the A's and B's are different in the expectation values for each run.

Best,

Fred
cc: Joy

Here is a response by me to Han and you and Joy:

Dear Han

Thanks for sending us your question about the 2pi, 4pi issue, which of
course is fascinating.

I'ld like to emphasize, though, that my dispute with Fred concerns my
reading of how Joy intends the experimenters to analyse the results of
his experiment. I am not arguing for or against his physics. My claim
is that as a matter of logical/arithmetical necessity, *whatever* set
of data is generated by the experiment, when performed according to
Joy's instructions, the computed correlations will satisfy all CHSH
inequalities. Fred and I have no dispute concerning the theoretical
part of the paper at all, and the content of that part of the paper is
completely irrelevant to our actual dispute.

Joy has today confirmed his intentions on the FQXi blog

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1247

as to exactly how the data should be gathered and processed. This is
what he wrote:

**********************************************************************************

For the record, let me repeat that equation (16) of my attached
experimental paper describes exactly how the expectation values E(a,
b), E(a', b), E(a, b'), and E(a', b') are to be computed in my
proposed experiment. Four separate sums are to be calculated as
follows

E(a, b) = 1/N Sum_j A_j B_j ,

E(a, b') = 1/N Sum_j A_j B'_j ,

E(a', b) = 1/N Sum_j A'_j B_j ,

and

E(a', b') = 1/N Sum_j A'_j B'_j .

It is a matter of indifference whether N here is chosen to be the same
or different for each of the four alternatives.

...

The experimental procedure described in my paper is unambiguous.

**********************************************************************************


Note that in the paper he writes down explicit formulas defining A_j,
A'_j, B_j, B'_j in terms of directions a, a', b, b' and observed
angular momenta lambda_j. He has confirmed these instructions on the
FQXi blog, and confirmed that the outcomes of these variables take the
values +/-1.

He has confirmed that the experiment generates 4N numbers +/-1.

They can in principle be arranged in an Nx4 table of numbers +/-1,
with rows labelled by the run number j=1...N, and columns labelled by
a, a', b and b'. The four correlations we are interested in are the
averages of the products of the elements of the corresponding pair of
columns.

Fred seems to think that I am misinterpreting Joy. I believe, however,
that Joy's instructions are completely unambiguous, and I believe I am
following his instructions to the letter. The dispute between Fred and
me is not whether or not Joy's physics is correct, but whether or not
my reading of Joy's instructions corresponds to Joy's intentions.

I believe that Fred also realizes that any array of 4N numbers +/-1,
representing outcomes in N runs of observations of A, A', B and B',
cannot violate any CHSH inequality. I suppose that Han also realizes
this. Tom has already said that he agrees with my proof of the fact.

Yours
Richard

I could not find any final "adjudication" by Han. Shortly after these exchanges Joy became so angry that I was told in no uncertain terms never to communicate with him again.

I do notice that I did write something different from what I meant to write. I wrote "The dispute between Fred and me is not whether or not Joy's physics is correct, but whether or not my reading of Joy's instructions corresponds to Joy's intentions." I should have written "The dispute between Fred and me is not whether or not Joy's physics is correct, but whether or not my reading of Joy's instructions corresponds to Joy's apparent intentions (i.e. intentions, as written)."

Obviously no-one can claim to read Joy's mind. But everyone can read his writings. The dispute was about the content of the writing, not the content of the mind.

It's amusing that we are back both with Joy's experiment and with the Nx4 spreadsheet and the basic questions of what how an experimenter is supposed to compute correlations and perform a CHSH test. Seems to me that two years ago, both Joy and Fred were a bit confused about the practicalities of CHSH.

[Joy Christian]

I recall having to write the following on the FQXi blog about a million times:

**********************************************************************************

For the record, let me repeat that equation (16) of my attached
experimental paper describes exactly how the expectation values
E(a, b), E(a', b), E(a, b'), and E(a', b') are to be computed in my
proposed experiment. Four separate sums are to be calculated as
follows

E(a, b) = 1/N Sum_j A_j B_j ,

E(a, b') = 1/N Sum_j A_j B'_j ,

E(a', b) = 1/N Sum_j A'_j B_j ,

and

E(a', b') = 1/N Sum_j A'_j B'_j .

It is a matter of indifference whether N here is chosen to be the same
or different for each of the four alternatives.

The experimental procedure described in my paper is unambiguous.

**********************************************************************************

I see nothing "confused" or confusing about this (although I had to write it about a million times to make it understood).

My derivation of a CHSH type inequality can be found in equations (9.82) to (9.100) on pages 230 to 233 of this paper.

Note, especially, equation (9.100) on page 233. No one needs to read my mind. It is enough to read what I have written.

[FrediFizzx]

Hi Joy,

That is correct as long as one realizes that the A from E(a, b) is not the same as the A from E(a, b'). Same for the others. The angles might be the same for the a's, b's, etc. but the A's, etc. are not the same in each set.

[Joy Christian]

Hi Joy,

That is correct as long as one realizes that the A from E(a, b) is not the same as the A from E(a, b'). Same for the others. The angles might be the same for the a's, b's, etc. but the A's, etc. are not the same in each set.

Yes, Fred, that is exactly the point. Michel also has been making the same point---exhaustively. And that is why I insist on calculating each E(a, b) etc. separately.

[FrediFizzx]

I could not find any final "adjudication" by Han.

From: Han Geurdes
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:58 AM
To: Fred Diether
Cc: joy.christian ; thomasray
Subject: Adjudication Fred-Richard dispute

Dear Fred,

Considering what I have understood I think you are right. Richard Gill is forcing Joy's experiment into the CHSH and because of varying measurement functions there is no straightforward route to the CHSH. In that sense Richard Gill is wrong.

[snip unrelated comments...]

Best
Han

There you go. You were informed of this and I am sure that you were because right after this you stopped posting on FQXi.
...
Oh... I found some more from the "Disproofs..." thread on FQXi,

Fred Diether replied on May. 29, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT

Hi James,

See my post on the Essay contest thread about how Gill was in fact "rigging the game" involving Joy's experiment and the CHSH inequality. Now even the arbiter of our dispute, Han Geurdes, has decided that I was right. He writes in an email to both Gill and I, "If Richard insist on the CHSH, he surely is rigging the game in his advantage." The CHSH inequality definitely does not apply to Joy's experiment. So most of what Gill writes above is false propaganda about Dr. Christian and his local realistic model that refutes Bell's theorem.

Dr. Christian's work is not all that hard to understand. Post whatever questions you might have about it in reply to my post on the Essay thread contest as this thread is getting way too slow.

Best,

Fred

And... here is more,

From: Han Geurdes
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 2:13 AM
To: Fred Diether
Cc: Richard Gill
Subject: Adjudication and all that


Hi Fred,

Sorry to hear that you think I am complicating. In fact I had the idea to solve the matter in a straightforward manner.

Enclosed a second draft which shows you even more clearly that varying measurement functions will not help one in order to avoid a BI contrast. It may look nice in the beginning but the clever Bellian always can come with a counter-argument that is fairly strong.

The resolution is simple (and I tried to hint at that earlier):

1. Joy is *not* forced to violate the CHSH. The issue is not about the (flawed) CHSH, it is about the quantum correlation with classical means. Btw, I think this has already been done before (Ann NY Acad Sci 1983, a conference to honor Eugene Wigner, but I forgot the exact reference).

2. If Richard insist on the CHSH, he surely is rigging the game in his advantage. Any BI reference is in Richard's advantage.

3. Joy has to reproduce the E(x,y)=-xy in his classical 'bomb splitting' experiment and forget about the CHSH and whatever contrast one can think of. Just the -xy.

If Joy can, it is demonstrated that classically the quantum correlation can be reproduced. Then it is good-bye, on an experimental level, to all the mathematically flawed stuff our Bellian opponents are trying to sell in computer simulations and other scientific malware. If not, they hold the key and will not hand it over voluntarily.

Should you disagree with my judgement then perhaps another adjudicator would be helpful. E.g. Gordon Watson or Bryan Sanctuary or Gregor Weihs. I am again going to enjoy the sun and work in the garden.

A note to my friend Richard: Please reconsider the math in ASTP2010 and your criticism. If serious then write a paper. Pedagogical flavoured escapes are not nice and show how much you are lacking arguments.

A note at my friend Joy: I hope you will succeed in the -xy experiment but do not fall ino the CHSH trap or the acceptance of Bell's formulation. If you do succeed, please invite Anouk and me at your Nobel party.

I leave it with that.

Best regards
Han

[gill1109]

Han says that if I insist on CHSH, I will win.

Joy Christian agrees to CHSH.

Joy and I have agreed to try to get his experiment done "CHSH-style".

Han says that I will win my bet with Joy!

Well, I already knew that, that's why I made it. Joy does not see the logic, but Han does see it clearly.

Han explicitly answered the question which was put to him (in order to adjudicate on a bet between Fred and me), and he agreed with me. He agreed that if we would perform the experiment and analyse it following Joy's written instructions to the letter, the experiment would necessarily fail (the letter of Joy's arXiv "experiment" paper). Han urges Joy to change the instructions to the experimenter. But Joy has never altered a word.

According to the adjudicator Han Geurdes, quoted above by Fred, I won my FQXi bet with Fred.

Incidentally, that's why I quit following the FQXi forum at that time. I had succesfully made my point that there were logical defects in Joy's writings which were plain to see, i.e., in plain view even to those without specialist technical knowledge.

Fred: please apologize for spreading the false information that you won our bet.

[Joy Christian]

You can find the correct description of my proposed experiment in this as well as this paper.

That's what his experiment paper claims. Have two hemispherical halves of a small ball fly apart, rotating in equal and opposite directions. Observe their spatial coordinates and orientations through a battery of video cameras and so that their directions of spin, relative to measurement directions a and a', and relative to directions b and b', could all be determined simultaneously.

Yes, determined simultaneously, but not used simultaneously. It is very clearly discussed in the first paper above that the calculation must be done according to equation (16). I am not interested in how anyone else does the calculation but Nature. I have described how Nature does the calculation in the above papers.

Later Joy insisted that we would only actually calculate A(a, lambda) *or* A(a', lambda), not both of them, but he makes clear that we should compute lambda using image reconstruction software from the video films, and A(a, lambda) is just the sign of a^T lambda.

There was, and there is, no "Later". The first paper exists since 2008. Your misinterpretation of what is written in it is not going to change anything.

You can calculate both A(a, lambda) and A(a', lambda) if you want, but cannot add A(a, lambda) and A(a', lambda), or subtract them, in the computation of the correlation. The four correlations must be calculated separately, as specified in equation (16) of the first paper:

**********************************************************************************

For the record, let me repeat that equation (16) of my attached
experimental paper describes exactly how the expectation values
E(a, b), E(a', b), E(a, b'), and E(a', b') are to be computed in my
proposed experiment. Four separate sums are to be calculated as
follows

E(a, b) = 1/N Sum_j A_j B_j ,

E(a, b') = 1/N Sum_j A_j B'_j ,

E(a', b) = 1/N Sum_j A'_j B_j ,

and

E(a', b') = 1/N Sum_j A'_j B'_j .

It is a matter of indifference whether N here is chosen to be the same
or different for each of the four alternatives.

The experimental procedure described in my paper is unambiguous.

**********************************************************************************

Once the four correlations are calculated as specified above, you can add them up as

E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b').

to check the CHSH violations.

Han says that I will win my bet with Joy!

Well, I already knew that, that's why I made it. Joy does not see the logic, but Han does see it clearly.

Well, then. Why not make some easy money off me? Why not raise the stakes of our bet? I am willing to go as high as 100,000 British pounds. How about you?

[FrediFizzx]

ROTFLMAO! There you go again; twisting things around to suit yourself. The bet was that you were "rigging the game". And you were rigging the game with your phony CHSH. Han said, "If Richard insist on the CHSH, he surely is rigging the game in his advantage." He further said, "Considering what I have understood I think you are right." That I was right. Time to man up Richard, and face the fact that you lost the bet. Stop twisting things around. Something that Han didn't fully understand is that you were and still are using a version of CHSH that is not even valid.

[gill1109]

ROTFLMAO! There you go again; twisting things around to suit yourself. The bet was that you were "rigging the game". And you were rigging the game with your phony CHSH. Han said, "If Richard insist on the CHSH, he surely is rigging the game in his advantage." He further said, "Considering what I have understood I think you are right." That I was right. Time to man up Richard, and face the fact that you lost the bet. Stop twisting things around. Something that Han didn't fully understand is that you were and still are using a version of CHSH that is not even valid.

Dear Fred

You can read in our correspondence what the bet was. The wording of the bet which I agreed on with you.

You can also read what was question which was put to Han Geurdes. Han avoided answering it directly. He only answered it indirectly, and this is confusing you. I'm not interested in some imaginary bet which you think I made, but which I certainly never did make.

The bet was not about whether or not I was rigging any game. How could it have been? I didn't define any game! Joy defined the game in his own paper on arXiv (read it). Unfortunately Joy unknowingly rigged his own game against himself. Han confirmed that and Han advised Joy strongly against doing the experiment because Han knows that Joy is going to be deeply disappointed.

Han thinks that nobody should do CHSH type experiments because somehow they are conceptually flawed.That's what he said to you.

Joy is the one who actually proposed to do a CHSH style experiment, and who still wants to do a CHSH type experiment. Han says to Joy: "withdraw now, before it is too late; you'll lose!" Han agrees with me, that Joy's experiment will fail.

I think this is all very interesting because it gives incontrovertible proof (a) there are some big gaps in Joy's comprehension of some quite simple aspects of CHSH type experiments (b) that his supporters are totally unaware that Joy's reasoning on quite simple matters is deeply flawed.

[Joy Christian]

Joy defined the game in his own paper on arXiv (read it). Unfortunately Joy unknowingly rigged his own game against himself. Han confirmed that and Han advised Joy strongly against doing the experiment because Han knows that Joy is going to be deeply disappointed.

Han thinks that nobody should do CHSH type experiments because somehow they are conceptually flawed.That's what he said to you.

Joy is the one who actually proposed to do a CHSH style experiment, and who still wants to do a CHSH type experiment. Han says to Joy: "withdraw now, before it is too late; you'll lose!" Han agrees with me, that Joy's experiment will fail.

I think this is all very interesting because it gives incontrovertible proof (a) there are some big gaps in Joy's comprehension of some quite simple aspects of CHSH type experiments (b) that his supporters are totally unaware that Joy's reasoning on quite simple matters is deeply flawed.

Well, then. Why not make some easy money off me? Why not raise the stakes of our bet? I am willing to go as high as 100,000 British pounds. How about you?

[gill1109]

No I can't stake 100 000 pounds. I only make bets which I can pay if necessary.

After all, though I know the chance I will lose is very small, it is still positive. I know how to calculate it! I know what it is!

In the very unlikely event that I'd lose, I wouldn't have 100 000 pounds to give to Joy.

[gill1109]

These sensors will determine the exact direction of the spin angular momentum sk (or −sk) for each shell in a given explosion, without disturbing them otherwise so that their total angular momentum would remain zero, at a designated distance from the center.

Once the actual directions of the angular momenta for a large ensemble of shells on both sides are fully recorded, the two computers are instructed to randomly choose a pair of reference directions, say a for one station and b for the other station.

The correlation function for the bomb fragments can then be calculated as E(a, b) = lim_n 1/n sum_k {sign(+sk · a)} {sign (−sk · b)}

I am making a bet about the value of the correlation function at just four points: E(a, b), E(a, b'), E(a', b), E(a', b').

We are going to do one experiment in order to settle this bet, and it has one "n", we don't take a limit.

I have insisted on a CHSH style experiment where each run is assigned (by random choice) to just one of the four correlations. But I am happy to relinquish that demand if Joy really is happy to calculate the four correlations on the same set of n runs (n values of sk).

[Heinera]

Just a quick question for Joy Christian: Does the conservation law for angular momentum still hold in your theory? (I'm afraid I wasn't able to deduce that by myself)

[Joy Christian]

Just a quick question for Joy Christian: Does the conservation law for angular momentum still hold in your theory? (I'm afraid I wasn't able to deduce that by myself)

Yes.